Print

Print


Avoids the question. Please answer it.

Mitchel

-----Original Message-----
>From: Eric Entemann <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Feb 20, 2007 8:22 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Anti-Science Left
>
>I most likely would have died in early childhood had the nascent fascist 
>pharmaceutical industry not supplied my doctor with penicillin.
>
>----Original Message Follows----
>From: Jonathan Campbell <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List              
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Anti-Science Left
>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:59:07 -0500
>
>Michael,
>
>So, a theory by Monsanto that it's OK to feed us frankenfood is OK, but a 
>theory that heart disease is caused by a nutrient deficiency (for instance) 
>is crackpot. Give me a break. I challenge you to find a single SENTENCE that 
>is incorrect in Pauling and Rath's paper. (I won't even get into possible 
>co-factors of AIDS such as HHV-6A).
>
>Disparagement and marginalization are the essence of writers for the cult of 
>mainstream science, and whatever the pharmaceutical industry doles out to us 
>is the best thing since sliced bread (until it kills people wholesale, like 
>Vioxx).
>
>Do you support genetic engineering of food, or do you not?
>
>Jonathan
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Michael Balter
>   To: [log in to unmask]
>   Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:40 AM
>   Subject: Re: Anti-Science Left
>
>
>   By the way, since concern has been expressed on this list about methods 
>of argumentation and personal attacks, let me be clear: I do not consider 
>Jonathan's post about my Science connection to be a personal attack, but a 
>legitimate political attack on my credibility as a commentator on science 
>related issues from a left perspective. If I worked for Exxon, that would 
>certainly be relevant to my credibility if the subject of global warming 
>came up here. I have defended myself against this political attack, that is 
>all. Likewise, it is a political and not a personal attack if I say that 
>Jonathan's peddling of crackpot theories discredits the left and its 
>influence in the wider population, especially when they are disseminated 
>publicly.
>
>   MB
>
>
>   On 2/20/07, Michael Balter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>     Other than saying that I was a member of Science for the People during 
>most of its existence as an organization and that a quick look at the 
>"Civilization's Discontents" segment of the News section of my Web site will 
>make my personal politics clear, I will leave it to others to comment on 
>whether my association with Science disqualifies me from commenting on 
>science from a left perspective.
>
>     www.michaelbalter.com
>
>
>
>
>     On 2/20/07, Jonathan Campbell <[log in to unmask] > wrote:
>       This is so ironic.
>
>       SESPA and Science For The People arose as a challenge to the 
>corporate use of science that was representative, at the time, of the AAAS 
>and its magazine, Science. Here we have an author from - of all magazines - 
>Science, who disparages anyone who criticizes anything that is generally 
>accepted by the very mainstream science that SftP challenged.
>
>       Does anyone else see the irony of this situation? Mr. Balter is Mr. 
>Science Establishment. You can't get any closer to the polar opposite of 
>what SftP was. It would be interesting to find out Mr. Balter's opinion on, 
>say, genetic engineering of food using antibiotic resistance marker 
>technology, RR soybeans, BT and RR corn, etc. His early article in the 
>International Herald seems rather uncritical: 
>http://www.iht.com/articles/1991/12/19/inst.php
>
>       Jonathan
>         ----- Original Message -----
>         From: Michael Balter
>         To: [log in to unmask]
>         Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 2:02 AM
>         Subject: Re: Anti-Science Left
>
>
>         Robert, thanks for this, very helpful. By the way, over the past 
>year or so those who believe in a race/IQ connection have gotten very 
>excited about the findings of University of Chicago geneticist Bruce Lahn's 
>publication in my own journal, Science, of genes possibly linked to human 
>cognition, under recent natural selection, and which have an allele 
>distribution suggesting Africans are disadvantaged (microcephalin and ASPM.) 
>Many here may have followed this. In December I wrote a profile of Lahn for 
>Science which raised the social and political issues with a sidebar looking 
>at recent scientific challenges to these interpretations. The articles can 
>be found here: Science 22 December 2006: Vol. 314. no. 5807, pp. 1871 - 
>1873. But if anyone does not have access to Science online and wants to 
>email me offlist, I will be happy to send the pdfs.
>
>         best, Michael
>
>
>         On 2/20/07, Robt Mann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>           José Morales has opened an important theme.
>           But in doing so he wrote:
>
>
>           ...
>
>
>             my thesis advisor ...  asked me what if researchers had 
>completed a study and found that white people were of superior intelligence 
>to people of color, would I believe the conclusions?  What if the study was 
>rock solid, completely water tight.  Then I went through a series of 
>questions and caveats and he replied yes this study took that into account.  
>Ultimately, the idea was that all possible criticisms from all corners 
>(people of color, civil libertarians etc.) were taken into account and 
>controlled for.  Would I believe it?  I said, well if all these possible 
>concerns and questions were taken into account and controlled for, I'd have 
>to believe that all white people are of superior intelligence to all people 
>of color.  He said, OK you will be a good scientist.
>
>
>                   José's msg doesn't look generally careless or unexamined, 
>so I take this as he states it.
>
>                   The idea that 'white people were of superior intelligence 
>to people of color' rocketed to prominence while I was a grad student at 
>Berkeley, where education prof Arthur Jensen stated it (in the form of a 
>difference in IQ medians &/or means &/or modes   -  any or all will serve 
>for present purposes, I suppose  -  between some whites and some 
>Afro-Americans).  The nature of this contention, and of the conclusions from 
>all the IQ measures which were purged from the Stanford-Binet IQ test suite 
>if they showed any difference between men and women, is overlapping 
>distributions with different means.
>                   Has anyone said 'all white people are of superior 
>intelligence to all people of color'  -  at least during the past century or 
>so?  Is the assertion deserving of serious discussion these days?  Everyone 
>who has experienced a sample >100 of each knows the most stupid whites are 
>far less intelligent than a clever non-white.  The notion of any race whose 
>intelligence distribution fails to overlap those of all other races is 
>contrary to obvious fact.
>                   Similarly, the slogan 'the Slavs are sub-human' is 
>obviously false.  But it was a major defining slogan of the Nazi party, 
>which you had to assent to if you wanted the social security that was 
>available in Germany for a decade by open adherence to that party.  I 
>postulate that it's in the nature of totalitarian systems to require assent 
>to slogans which are not subtly but flagrantly false &/or immoral.
>                   What José says he would assent to if research concluded 
>it rock-solidly is known to every experienced adult, whether educated or 
>not, to be false.  I am loath to believe that he or anyone else on this list 
>could ever assent to it, whether or not some scientists had asserted it with 
>whatever authority & 'evidence'.
>                   I focus on this slide from 'race W is, on average, of 
>superior intelligence to race C' to  'all  people of race W are of superior 
>intelligence to all people of race C' because this same fallacy often occurs 
>in polemics about sexism.  In my experience, even when the postulated 
>distributions are drawn with very large extents of overlap (on a paper 
>napkin at lunch in a U staff club), fanatical wimminsLibbers are capable of 
>promptly threatening violence, complaining as if what had been asserted was 
>'all men are of superior intelligence to all women'.  Such a raver is 
>immediately escorted out of the building, but when outside fails to give any 
>excuse for decking her.  I have seen that mode of argumentation countless 
>times, which is why it interests me now when it comes from José (wrt race 
>not sex).
>
>                   BTW supposing the Jensen/Shockley-type conclusion had 
>been proven, wouldn't it follow that the disadvantaged group should get 
>special help in education, medicine, nutrition,   ...  ?  That was my 
>response 4 decades ago when those who fancied themselves as radicals 
>vilified Jensen (of whose work I knew nothing else); and is still my answer. 
>  Racial differences entailed in sickle-cell anaemia should be admitted 
>(when proven), and acted upon.  It is not racist to say so.  Why is 
>intelligence utterly different?
>                   I must add that I'm very sceptical of IQ and far from 
>convinced that the Jensen conclusion describes anything important.  But 
>since José has postulated the condition of its being thoroughly meaningful & 
>proven, I want to respond on his reaction to that imagined state of affairs.
>
>
>                   If what José said was, instead, an oversight in his 
>writing, then I would like to hear discussion of psychological patterns of 
>this type, which can cause a certain amount of misunderstanding & trouble.
>
>
>           R
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         --
>         www.michaelbalter.com
>
>         ******************************************
>         Michael Balter
>         Contributing Correspondent, Science
>         [log in to unmask]
>         ******************************************
>
>
>
>     --
>     www.michaelbalter.com
>
>     ******************************************
>     Michael Balter
>     Contributing Correspondent, Science
>     [log in to unmask]
>     ******************************************
>
>
>
>   --
>   www.michaelbalter.com
>
>   ******************************************
>   Michael Balter
>   Contributing Correspondent, Science
>   [log in to unmask]
>   ******************************************
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Refi Now: Rates near 39yr lows!  $430,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo - Calculate 
>new payment 
>http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-17727&moid=7581